Freud and Feminism: Introductory Readings

The following messages were sent to WMST-L in October 2009 in response toa request for "something fairly short and introductory" to help undergraduatestudents understand why some feminists have found Freud to be worth readingand thinking about. For more WMST-L files available on the Web, see theWMST-L File Collection.

Hi, everyone--A young (male) colleague of mine in the philosophy department is teachinga freshman seminar on Freud's _Introductory Lectures on Psychoanalysis_,and, understandably, a number of his bright, female students are turnedoff by various of Freud's sexist remarks, gratuitous and otherwise. Mycolleague is figuring out how to handle this, and we thought he might givestudents something fairly short and introductory to read about why somefeminists have found Freud to be worth reading and thinking about in spiteof the obvious problems. But nothing suitable comes to mind.Any suggestions?Thank you!Sally Markowitz

Juliet Mitchell's Psychoanalysis and Feminism: Freud, Reich, Laing andWomen, 1974 is a classic response of a feminist both making a genderedcritique of Freud and then finding ways that feminists can stillbenefit from his scholarship. I would give students the introductionand tell them where to find it if they would like to read more, andIrigaray's Speculum also contains a great critique of Freud and wellas Lacan, but her style is experimental so students would need helpsituating themselves with the text, whereas Mitchell's isstraightforward. I love Kristeva's work, but couldn't point to onetext as the place where she makes a sustained critique of Freud, butany one would benefit from reading the "Women's Time" chapter in herbook, New Maladies of the Soul. Cheers, Cindy Childress, Ph. D.Kuala Lumpur, Malaysia

Many feminist psychologists/psychoanalysts have written about theusefulness of evolving contemporary psychoanalysis--both as a methodologyand a theory with powerful explanatory possibilities. In addition toJuliette Mitchell, one might look to Dorothy Dinnerstein (The Mermaid andthe Minotaur) and Jean Baker Miller (Towards a Psychology of Women), NancyChodorow,(Reproduction of Mothering and Feminism and Psychoanalysis),Adrienne Harris (Gender as Soft Assembly) and Lynne Layton (Who's ThatBoy, Who's That Girl?), and others. Jane A. Hassinger, MSW, DCSW, PsychoanalystSenior Lecturer, Women's StudiesResearch Scientist, Institute for Research on Women and GenderUniversity of Michiganjahass AT umich.edu

I second Cindy's suggestions and comments here. He should look atJuliet Mitchell's _Psychoanalysis and Feminism_. It's important tomake the point with students that early on, Freud's own students andothers started critiquing parts of his theories--on women and othertopics. (And he didn't like it much!)Perhaps better, or more current (because it includes Irigaray andKristeva) is Rosemarie Tong's chapter, "Psychoanalytic Feminism," in_Feminist Thought_ (3d ed.), which covers a lot of the issues andmajor figures.And lest we forget: there's a chapter on psychoanalysis in _The SecondSex_ (1949) where Beauvoir both acknowledges the advancespsychoanalysis represents as well as its (Freud's) limits. Jo-Ann Pilardi Prof. Emerita, Towson U., Md.

hi Sally, Your colleague may want to check out "The Knotted Subject" (1998) byElisabeth Bronfen. I like that it reads in parts like a feministpsychoanalysis of Freud. It puts Freud very much on the same footingas the hysterics he treated and is more than even-handed in itstreatment of Freud. Bronfen actually holds some of his sexistremarks up to scrutiny e.g. his comment that "there would be one simpletherapy for widowhood, of course. All sorts of intimate thingsnaturally". It's seems to be what the instructor is needing right now--but why not include unsympathetic feminist treatments of Freud aswell? I'd be pretty turned off by a seminar on Freud's introductorylectures on psychoanalysis too.It's very well-suited for an intro philosophy course. It can be abit rough-going in places but if the students are readingFreud's lectures they might find it a picnic in comparison! Theproblem is it doesn't meet the criteria i.e., something fairly shortand introductory. The instructor might be able to make use of one ofthe chapters, eg. the chapter called "Me Freud, You Jane".The instructor can google it and read parts of this book online. Paulapaula.c.peel AT rogers.com

for something really short and introductory, as someone just wrote, thatalso opens worlds and opportunities for much class discusssion, I'drecommend simply the following (the latter, below), as each entry is only 1or 2 pages, and would serve the requested needs well, showing a range ofunderstanding and connection of eras, way into the past and way into thefuture:E.G., See Teresa Brennan's introduction to her anthology above, and herentries in Feminism and Psychoanalysis: A Critical Dictionary (BlackwellReference) by E. L. Wright (Paperback - Nov 10, 1992), e.g., her entry onpsychical reality.Barrie Karp, Ph.D.barriekarp AT gmail.com

A well-educated woman doesn't read only the works she wants to. Freudis worth reading because he offered the first theories ofpsychoanalysis. If I haven't read him, how can I argue with what hesaid?While many of Freud's ideas have fallen out of favor or have beenmodified by Neo-Freudians and at the close of the 20th centuryadvances in the field of psychology began to show flaws in many of histheories, Freud's methods and ideas remain important in the history ofclinical psychodynamic approaches.In academia, his ideas continue to influence the humanities and somesocial sciences. From Wikipedia:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/FreudFreud's nephew and consumerismI took a marketing class in which we learned that Freud's nephewEdward Bernays (also spelled Bernaise) was a pioneer in the use ofpsychology to make people want "things." See the article below for afascinating story about the origins of American consumerism. It'sreally sad that Bernays, in the employ of the tabacco industry, paidwomen to smoke while walking in the Easter parades in New York duringthe 1920s. He made smoking attractive and acceptable, influencing manywomen to take up smoking when it had been considered off limits towomen before. I know many women who have emphysema or have died fromemphysema who started to smoke at that time. Yet Bernays who lived inCambridge until his death was involved in charitable activities latein life, and I know several people who knew and respected him andenjoyed his company.Tom Rushing, "Controlling the Masses: From Religion to Bernaise,"August 30, 2006. http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/article14763.htmPropaganda during war was nothing new, but Bernaise saw an opportunityto use the unconscious desires of humans to manipulate the masses intimes of peace also. Bernaise believed that by fulfilling theunconscious desires of people would change a potentially unrulypopulation into a controlled docile one. Bernaise invented the muchused term "public relations," and used it to turn the population ofthe United States into consumers. Before Bernaise worked his magic,the American population only bought goods according to their needs. Itwas practically unheard of to buy something for any otherreason. Bernaise made it acceptable to make a purchase based ondesires. Using Hollywood through product placement, and the media, hechanged the population into an easily placated self-absorbed groupwhere before they were actively participating.Best regards, BarbaraBarbara Passero, DirectorYoung Women's Career & Mentor Kit ProgramsExploring careers through mentoringRecent story http://www.wickedlocal.com/belmont/homepage/x2141120011/Passero-encourages-career-path-developmentTV interview with Barbara Passero http://blip.tv/file/2396972 . bpassero AT camkit.infowww.camkit.info

He might want to have a look at Hannah Lerman's, _A Mote in Freud's Eye:>From Psychoanalysis to the Psychology of Women_. The PsycINFO abstract canbe found at http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1986-98395-000 It's been yearssince I read it, but I found it helpful as a starting point in coming to(feminist) terms with Freudian theory. >>>>>>>>> AT AT <<<<<<<<<Bev Ayers-Nachamkin, Ph.DWilson College1015 Philadelphia Ave.Chambersburg, PA 17201bayersna AT comcast.netbayers AT wilson.edu

Gloria Steinem wrote an essay, "What if Freud were Phyllis? or, TheWatergate of the Western World" in her book _Moving Beyond Words_ which isfun to read and at the same time very insightful.Jeffrey Masson wrote _The assault on Truth: Freud's Suppression of theSeduction Theory_Also philosopher Mary Daly critically alludes to Lacanian and Freudiantheory in _The Wickedary_.Catharine MacKinnon offers brief but valuable criticism of Lacan, describinghim as solipsistic and deeply essentialist, though he pretends to be theopposite.Hopefully this instructor will encourage his students to follow theircritical instincts, rather than put a "feminist" spin on Freud to make thepill go down easier. I believe that many of those who call themselvesfeminist critics of Freud (and Lacan) offer only a superficial challenge (ifthat), thereby distracting from a potentially deeper (and more obvious)challenge to the fundamental sexist premise.I personally found nothing feminist about Julia Kristeva. It's been manyyears since I've read her, but "defeatism" and "fascist thought" seemed moreaccurate descriptive terms to me at the time (and probably still would).Juliette Mitchell, by calling her approach feminist, provides sugar onintellectual fraud. Even Luce Irigaray accepts and works with Lacan's flawedpremise, which thereby legitimizes it and distracts students fromcriticizing and challenging the work in a more fundamental way. (I'm notagainst students studying their work, of course, but I do supportchallenging it. And I do find some value in Freud's work.)Adriene Sereagoldhorse AT gmail.com

I really like Janice Doane and Devon Hodges's FROM KLEIN TO KRISTEVA:PSYCHOANALYTIC FEMINISM AND THE SEARCH FOR THE "GOOD ENOUGH" MOTHER, whichdoes an excellent job of showing how some of those who have used Freud/Lacanwhile criticizing its misogyny have nonetheless perpetuated it thereby, bythus assuming the legitimacy of its central premises, etc. Perhaps theinstructor could offer a bibliography, annotated with our comments here?Even just knowing that this stuff is out there would help some students, andthey could investigate where they felt most concerned - psychoanalysis, filmstudies, mothering studies, etc.Jessica B. Burstrem, M.A.The University of Arizona Department of Englishhttp://www.clinefelter.com/jessicajessica AT clinefelter.com

I don't think anyone has mentioned Mari Jo Buhle's Feminism and ItsDiscontents: A Century of Struggle with Psychoanalysis. The Introduction toBuhle's book takes up precisely this question of what Freud's womencontemporaries (like Emma Goldman) saw in his psychoanalysis.Cynthia BurackDepartment of Women's Studies286 University Hall, 230 N. Oval MallOhio State UniversityColumbus, OH 43210-1311burack.1 AT osu.eduSin, Sex, and Democracy: Antigay Rhetoric and the Christian Righthttp://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=61612>http://www.sunypress.edu/details.asp?id=61612

Could I ask that the original poster of this question collect all theseterrific responses into one email and post it? I am finding this threadextremely useful as I deal with much the same problem in many of my classeswhen Freud (inevitably) comes up. As one of my colleagues put it, ourstudents have already been thoroughly innoculated against Freud so mychallenge always is not getting them to see the sexism (they already do, asthe original poster pointed out). It's getting them to ask whether there isanything beyond that that might be useful.Laurie FinkeLaurie FinkeSelf-Study CoordinatorReaccreditation 2010O'Connor Housefinkel AT kenyon.edureaccreditation AT kenyon.edu

[Presumably in response to Barrie Karp's first message, above, which wasquoted at the end of this message.]Not to be overlooked in this however is that there are stereotypesaplenty in Freud's Intro Lectures. You may not want to start with abook that may reinforce "uninformed" beliefs in stereotypes aboutFreud. But I might choose that book overone that feeds stereotypes about women and that in having done so hasboth fuelled - and normalized - misogyny. I'm not really on the same page with you regarding your appraisal--i.e.,that correcting students' uninformed beliefs in stereotypesabout Freud and psychoanalysis as enemies of feminism is what has tohappen. I am concerned moreover that there's a faulty assumption atwork that female students are bringing with them uninformed beliefsinto the classroom (hence male students are much more open-mindedabout Freud?) Here's my own appraisal of the situation: If these female studentsare new to philosophy they're probably immersed in this sort of stuffright now. If they're just starting out in philosophy this will betheir first time encountering blatant sexism in academictexts. It can come as a shock, finding out that so many of the"greats" were sexist (and worse) and shocking too on discovering howthis is so deeply embedded in their thinking and theories (which iswhy I would take issue with pointing to Freud's "personal sexism"- asif it can be accounted for and then brushed away / dismissed). AnywayI think this may be the situation here and is something that theinstructor might just have to take into account. He might even findit rather comforting. It's an introductory course in philosophy andthe female students will probably not just have had much exposure tothis sort of thing yet. They're still spunky enough to point itout. . . give them time and they'll see so much of this that they'llwonder why they ever bothered to point it out. Sad but true. Butkudos to the instructor for attempting to address their concernswithout downplaying them.Paulapaula.c.peel AT rogers.com

It's not just feminists or women who dispute the merits of Freud'swork, though. There's a large body of strong criticism of Freud asscientist, psychologist, honest inquirer, etc - epistemologicalcriticism, basically. He's irrelevant to cognitive science andresearch psychology, so he's apparently being stealthily shifted overto the Big Thinker department - or even the philosophy department, butof course he was in no sense a philosopher.Ophelia Bensonopheliabenson AT msn.com<mailto:opheliabenson AT msn.com>

My book, Gender Inequality: Feminist Theories and Politics (4th ed. Oxford2010) has a chapter on psychoanalytic feminism (chap 7) which includes anexcerpt from Nancy Chodorow's Feminism and Psychoanalytic Theory (1989,Yale). The chapter and the excerpt are student-friendly.Judith ***********************************************************Judith Lorber, Ph.D.Professor EmeritaGraduate Center and Brooklyn College, CUNYjlorber AT rcn.comImagine a world without gender!**********************************************